See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/339138726

The Management of Cow Shelters (Gaushalas) in India, Including the

Attitudes of Shelter Managers to Cow Welfare

Article  in  Animals · February 2020

DOI: 10.3390/ani10020211

CITATION READS

1 5,312

3 authors, including:

Arvind Sharma Clive J C Phillips

The University of Queensland Curtin University
67 PUBLICATIONS   152 CITATIONS    478 PUBLICATIONS   7,464 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Infrared thermography in dairy cattle- is it linked to anxiety and productivity? View project

Visual Lateralization in Cattle View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Arvind Sharma on 10 February 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Article
The Management of Cow Shelters (Gaushalas) in
India, Including the Attitudes of Shelter Managers to
Cow Welfare
Arvind Sharma 1,*, Catherine Schuetze 2 and Clive J.C Phillips 1
1 Centre for Animal Welfare and Ethics, School of Veterinary Science, The University of Queensland, Gatton
Campus 4343, Australia; c.phillips@uq.edu.au
2 Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, The University of Sydney, New South Wales 2006, Australia;

vajracat@gmail.com
* Correspondence: arvind.sharma@uqconnect.edu.au; Tel.: +61-472-622-438 (A.S.)

Received: 19 November 2019; Accepted: 23 January 2020; Published: 28 January 2020

Simple Summary: Sheltering of old, unproductive and abandoned cows in traditional cow shelters
(gaushalas) is an ancient practice in India. Cows are venerated as mother goddesses by the Hindu
majority population of the country and their slaughter is illegal in most states. Shelters are funded
by the public, businesses, including corporate philanthropy, charitable societies, temple trusts and
government. The manager of the shelter provides an interface between visitors, workers and cattle
and is best able to understand the challenges of running shelters. The objective of this study was to
collect and analyze information about the routine operations of the shelters and elicit managers’
attitudes towards cows and cow welfare. We visited 54 shelters, which admitted cattle all year,
vaccinated them against endemic diseases and dewormed them. Limited biosecurity measures and
erratic waste disposal raise concerns about public health. All the managers felt that the welfare of
cows in their respective shelters was important and should be improved, but they were less certain
that their knowledge of animal welfare was adequate. There was more recognition of local
community support than government support and both were acknowledged to be more moral than
financial support. Engagement and training of shelter managers as vital stakeholders in welfare
improvement processes will enhance the sustainability of these traditional institutions.

Abstract: Gaushala management is a specialized profession requiring particular skills relating to the
management of cow shelters or gaushalas, which are traditional and ancient Indian institutions that
shelter old, unproductive and abandoned cows, The 1800 registered cow shelters in India have
managers who are important stakeholders in the management of cows in these unique institutions.
It is important to survey the routine management of these shelters and attitudes of the managers
towards cow welfare to identify the constraints and welfare issues. We visited 54 shelters in six
states of India for a face-to-face structured interview of the managers. Quantitative data collection
included questions on demographics, routine management operations, protocols followed in the
shelters and attitudes of the managers towards cow welfare. All shelters except one were managed
by males, half of them were in the age range of 45–65 years, were university graduates or post-
graduates, with 5–15 years shelter management experience, and with the majority having lived in
rural areas for most of their lives. Each shelter housed a median of 232 cattle were housed, out of
which 13 were lactating cows. The majority of managers vaccinated their animals against endemic
diseases like foot and mouth disease, haemorrhagic septicaemia and black quarter (gangraena
emphysematosa) and administered endo-and ectoparasiticidal treatments, however, hardly any
screened the cattle for brucellosis and tuberculosis. Only 17% of the shelters had in house
veterinarians and most cows died of old age, with an annual mortality rate of 14%. The majority of
the shelters allowed the cows to reproduce. Access to pasture was available in only 41% of the
shelters, while most allowed some access to yards. Most (57%) had limited biosecurity measures,
but 82% of the shelters disposed of the carcasses by deep burial on their own premises or through

Animals 2020, 10, 211; doi:10.3390/ani10020211 www.mdpi.com/journal/animals

Animals 2020, 10, 211 2 of 32

the municipality, with 18% disposing of them in open spaces or nearby creeks. About one half of
the shelters maintained records of the protocols followed routinely. Charitable societies ran half of
the shelters, mostly through public donations, with accounts audited regularly. Most managers
thought that shelter cows’ welfare was important and that they should attempt to improve it. They
were less in agreement that their knowledge of animal welfare was adequate. Local support, more
moral than financial, was recognized more than government support. Managers perceived cow
welfare as important from a religious perspective, citing the mother god and caring for abandoned
animals as frequent themes in their definition of cow welfare. Caring for animals, mother and
goddess were key elements in managers’ perception of animal welfare. The recommendations
arising from this survey include that the shelter managers should be involved in the decision-
making process for the welfare of cows in shelters, which is vital for the sustainability of these
unique institutions. Welfare could be improved by strict compliance with biosecurity measures and
disease surveillance protocols, avoidance of unrestricted reproduction in cows and separation of
males and females.

Keywords: shelters; cows; managers; survey; attitudes; welfare; India

1. Introduction
In India cows in their late lactation, with reduced production and competing with other cows
for the costly feed, are often abandoned to the streets. In urban areas, they then forage on garbage
dumps, potentially consuming plastics and wires, as well as potentially suffering fatal traffic injuries
[1]. Abandoning of cows in streets is contentious as these cows are often injured, even causing human
mortality, and potentially causing a public health risks to humans and animals [2,3]. According to
the Indian government, stray animals caused 1604 road accidents in 2016, leading to 629 human
deaths [4]. Stray cows in the roads and streets have specifically been implicated as the causes of these
road accidents [5]. In the villages, crop-raiding by abandoned cows has led to human–animal conflict,
with farmers sometimes having to abandon cropping and cows beaten and chased away. In this
scenario, gaushalas are the only alternatives to shelter these stray cows, as a religious ban on cow
slaughter is increasing their numbers every year.
The sheltering of old, abandoned, unproductive, infertile and infirm cows in shelters, referred
to as “Gaushalas” is a traditional practice in India. The exact origin of these shelters is not known but
documentary evidence of their existence is available from the 3rd to 4th century BCE [6]. Over time
they diversified, based on their religious affiliations and ownership [7]. Cows are worshipped as a
mother goddess by many Hindus, who constitute the majority population. Cow slaughter is illegal
in most Indian states [8,9]. Both the Muslim invasion and the later European colonization created
socio-political conditions linking the cow with symbols of purity and Hindu identity. More recently,
political parties strengthened the cow protection and cow sheltering movement [10–12]. Mahatma
Gandhi emphasized the role of shelters in the economic growth of India rather than their religious
role, by advocating the dairying and breeding of shelter cows based on the scientific principles [13].
In the early independence years, the role of gaushalas changed from sacred cow sanctuaries to
potential breeding and dairying centers for high yielding cows, with active financial support from
the government [14].
India is the largest producer of milk and has the largest number of dairy cows in the world (58.5
million), as well as the largest cattle population (190.9 million). The last livestock census (2012)
reported 5.2 million stray cattle [15]. In a government survey conducted in 1956 there were 1020
gaushalas in 21 states of India [16], which has grown to the current 1837 registered gaushalas,
according to the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI), the statutory body under the Government
of India’s Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960 (PCA, 1960). However, there are reports that the
total number, including unregistered gaushalas, is approximately 5000 [17,18].
Animals 2020, 10, 211 3 of 32

Managers are employed by the trustees, charitable societies, temple trusts, municipalities or
government, according to who owns the shelter. A two thousand-year-old Hindu text, the
‘Arthashastra’, describes the administration of gaushalas, including a position of ‘Godyaksa’
(Superintendent of Cows) [6]. Nowadays managers provide an interface with visitors, who come to
donate, worship, feed or just see the cows. Managers have multiple roles, as cashiers, cattle and
worker superintendents, and receptionists. Despite this, their attitudes towards cow welfare and
gaushalas have never been studied. Studies investigating attitudes towards animal welfare issues are
common in developed countries [19–21], including aspects of dairy farm management [22–24], and
even dairy farms in India [25–27].
The paucity of studies on gaushala management is evident [6,28,29], even though there are
qualitative studies critical of the management of cow shelters in a philosophical context [9,12]. There
is a lacuna in literature on the quantitative assessment of the routine management of cow shelters in
the contemporary context, when the sheltering of cattle has gained importance in the wake of an
increasing problem of street cows and the impetus for strengthening the shelters from the Indian
government.
Therefore, a survey was designed to collect and analyze information about the routine animal
husbandry operations and practices of shelters and to elicit the attitudes of managers of the gaushalas
to cows and their welfare. Information about the routine working of the gaushalas, husbandry
practices followed, demographics of the sheltered animals, preventative health and biosecurity
measures undertaken, income and expenditure of the gaushalas, constraints and visitor profile are
important to objectively assess the welfare of the cows in these shelters. The opinions and attitudes
of these managers towards cows and cow welfare is also important to provide feedback to the
stakeholders—shelter owners, donors, trustees and the government. This feedback can help in
initiating training programs and selecting appropriate candidates for recruitment as shelter
managers.

2. Materials and Methods

Human ethics approval for this study was provided by the University of Queensland’s Human
Ethics Committee (approval number 2016001243). Interviews were conducted with shelter managers
between November 2016 and July 2017, as a part of a welfare assessment of cows in shelters in six
states of India (Gujarat, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh) [30]. These
states were selected on the basis of having the largest concentration of shelters in India and a tradition
of sheltering cows (Gujarat, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Punjab and Haryana) and one state (Himachal
Pradesh), which was actively establishing cow shelters to tackle the stray cattle problem (Figure 1).
As there is no list of all shelters in India, a list of shelters supported by the AWBI was used in the
selection process, which was to an extent random but had to consider the logistics for visiting them.
Local veterinarians and shelter staff helped in locating the shelters and introducing the interviewer
to the managers. The local veterinarians and shelter staff had no role in influencing the managers’
responses to our questionnaire or in any other way affecting the assessment of the shelters. Each
shelter manager of the 54 cow shelters assessed was interviewed for approximately 35 min, before
assessing the animals and resources present for the objective assessment of the overall welfare of
cows in shelters. The sample size of shelters (n = 54) was determined using a power calculation [31]
which determined that 50 shelters would adequately represent the number of shelters in major Indian
states having shelters. The study was designed to detect an odds ratio of 4 with a power of 0.8 and α
= 0.05. The prerequisite for shelter selection was that they should be sheltering at least 30 cattle and
should not be selling more than 20 litres of milk per day. A good geographical distribution of the
shelters in each state was ensured for sampling in the study along with a mixture of good or bad
shelters. Shelters were selected on the basis of recommendations of the AWBI, veterinarians working
in the state animal husbandry departments and through a snowballing technique.
Animals 2020, 10, 211 4 of 32

Figure 1. Schematic map of India depicting states covered under the gaushala study.

2.1. Questionnaire Design

Interviews with the shelter managers in Hindi were conducted using a questionnaire with
multiple-choice, semi-closed and open-ended questions, to collect socio-demographic data, data
about shelter management and husbandry practices and attitudinal data of the managers to cows and
cow welfare (Appendix A). The first section had three screening questions about whether the shelter
housed at least 30 animals, whether infertile, abandoned, rescued, stray, old and infirm cows were
being sheltered, whether the shelter had any religious connection and age of the shelter. The second
section on demographics asked their gender, usual place of residence, age, religion and religiosity
and education level. They were then asked to describe their job in the shelter, their level of
understanding and knowledge about cow shelters, source of gaining this knowledge, any animal
welfare activity outside of the shelter, and the length of time they had spent working in that shelter.
The third section addressed cattle numbers and cattle management: the number of lactating cows,
mean milk yields, the proportion of horned cattle, the number of other cattle (bulls, bullocks, non-
lactating cows and heifers, males and female calves, less than 6 months of age), the fate of calves born
in the shelter (sold, donated or reared); vaccination and deworming practices, including frequency
of use and for which pathogens; veterinarian involvement (in house or visiting; frequency of visits),
number of male and female workers and the length of time they had worked there, whether there
Animals 2020, 10, 211 5 of 32

was induction training, whether the manager kept records, sold livestock products and ran a biogas
plant at the shelter.
The fourth section asked about the status of the shelter (public or private trust, government,
charitable society, board of directors, municipality, individual or any other), the source of funding,
annual income and expenditure, including whether audited, affiliation with the AWBI. The fifth
section addressed husbandry: mortality and its major causes, whether colostrum was fed to calves,
whether cows and calves were separated after birth, the cattle feeding regime, including whether
visitors fed the cows, the time spent by the cattle outdoors in the yard or at pasture, whether the cows
bred or not, and if they did the purpose of the breeding; whether there were any animal enrichment
and/or biosecurity measures (the latter particularly during the introduction of new animals, disposal
of carcasses, and isolation of diseased animals), the disposal of cow excreta, the maintenance of cows
in segregated groups; use of loading/unloading ramps; whether animal experimentation was
allowed; natural disasters plans; volunteering by the public, and any public relation or outreach
activity done by the shelter.
Finally managers responded to attitude questions on a Likert scale (1, strongly disagree to 5,
strongly agree): the welfare of this gaushala’s cows is satisfactory and important to me; my
knowledge of animal welfare is adequate; the feed the cows receive is adequate; I am willing to adopt
measures that will improve the welfare of the cows, if provided to me; the local community and
government financially and morally support the gaushala; I intend to make improvements to the
welfare of the cows under my care; in the past I have tried to make improvements to the welfare of
the cows in my care; the staff at this gaushala have a close relationship with the cows. Finally, an
open-ended question was asked: what you understand by the term ‘welfare of cows’?

3. Statistical Analysis
Data was screened for errors, and analysis completed with statistical software [Minitab 17
Statistical Software (2010). State College, PA: Minitab, Inc. (www.minitab.com)]. Descriptive
statistical analysis was performed on the questionnaire results and respondent demographics,
complimentary data, and responses to attitude questions (refer supplementary material) expressed
as numbers and percentages.
The association of the dependent variables, income of the shelter and mortality rate of cow
shelter with various categorical and continuous independent variables was explored using a general
linear model (GLM). Logistic regression analyses (either binary, nominal or ordinal, as appropriate
to the response structure) were used to analyze the significance of relationships between type of
administration, affiliation with AWBI and financial support of the government (which had Likert
scale response), the income of the shelter, mortality rate, disease outbreaks in the last five years,
biosecurity measures, breeding of cows in shelters, time cows spent outdoors, training of workers,
frequency of veterinarian visits, frequency of deworming, ectoparasiticidal treatments and
vaccination, numbers lactating cows in the shelters, total milk yield of the shelters and the total
number of animals in the shelters. Cross tabulations between dependent variables and independent
variables were also inspected, ensuring that all individual expected counts were ≥1. An iterative
reweighted least squares algorithm with a logit link function was used in the models. All models
achieved convergence. All probability values were considered significant at p < 0.05.
The type of administration of the shelter (whether managed by a public trust, private trust,
government or a charitable society), Affiliation with the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) and
Income of the shelter were used as outcome variables against animal health and welfare based
variables: mortality rate, vaccination status, vaccination frequency, status and frequency of
deworming and ectoparasiticidal treatment, total number of animals in the shelter, milk yield of cows
in the shelter, number of dairy cows in the shelter, frequency of veterinarian visits to the shelter,
training of workers, biosecurity measures for new cattle admitted, time spent by the cows outdoors
and disease outbreaks in five years. According to the nature of outcome variable (continuous, binary
or ordinal) GLM, ordinal or nominal regression models were used to explore associations between
these variables.
Animals 2020, 10, 211 6 of 32

We used a one-way ANOVA to determine whether any significant differences in the responses
to the twelve attitude questions existed. Each attitude question was taken as a response and the other
11 questions were used as factors with the possible answers to each question as levels of the factor
variable (1, strongly disagree to 5, strongly agree). The level of significance was fixed at 5%. Tukey’s
method was used to compare the means for each pair of factor levels to control the rate of type 1
error. Chi-square test for association was used to test for any differences in the disposal of male and
female calves.
Thematic analysis of the open-ended question about what the gaushala manager understood by
the term ‘welfare of cows’ was conducted by a single thematic coder, using NVivo Pro 12 software
(NVivo qualitative data analysis software; QSR International Pty Ltd. Version 12, 2018,
https://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo/nvivo-products/nvivo-12-plus). This extracted the main
trends from the word frequency and word cloud functions. Conjunctives (such as ‘and’) and words
which were irrelevant to the study theme (such as ‘a’ or ‘it’) were manually excluded from the output
and the analysis repeated.

4. Results

4.1. Respondent Demographics

All 54 shelter managers completed the questionnaire, a 100% response rate. There was only one
female shelter manager. The majority of the managers had lived most of their lives in villages (63%),
some in urban areas (28%), country towns (7%) and suburban areas (2%). Most were aged 46–55 years
(26%), or over 65 years (22%), with fewer 36–45 years (18%), 56–65 years (17%), 26–35 years (15%) and
18–25 years (2%). Of the managers, 28%were university graduates, 24% were post-graduates, 21%
ended their education after passing grade 12 and 9% at grade 10, 13% were diploma holders, and 5%
were either below grade 10 pass or had no formal education.
Almost all of the managers were Hindus (96.3%), with many considering themselves very
(55.5%) or moderately (43%) religious. Nearly all (94%) considered their job as being team leaders
supervising staff working directly with the cows; only 6% indicated that they worked directly with
the cows. The majority of the managers (67%) believed themselves to have a good knowledge and
understanding of cow shelters, 18% considered themselves to be experts, 13% considered that they
had some knowledge and 2% little knowledge. A majority (81%) indicated that their knowledge of
cow welfare came from hands-on experience of working on farms, 7% had formal qualifications on
welfare, and 3% from newspapers, periodicals, television programs and the internet. Although most
(59%) were not involved with any animal welfare organisations, some (61%) were involved in other
animal welfare activities: animal activism, humane education or feeding stray animals. Only 30%
were involved with professions unrelated to animal welfare before joining the shelters, 33% had a
long experience of similar work in animal welfare, more than 15 years, followed by 21% between 5–
9 years, 17% between 10–15 years, 13% between 2–3 years, 11% between 3–5 years and only 5% being
there for less than a year. Of the managers, 28% had spent 10–15 years working at their current shelter,
followed by 19% 3–5 years, 17% 5–9 years, 17% >15 years, 13% 2–3 years and 7% < one year.

4.2. Establishment of the Shelters and Their Financial Performance

Half of the managers reported the shelter’s religious connection to Hinduism (27 shelters), 11%
to Jainism, 9% to Jainism and Hinduism, 8% to others (Sikhism and Islam), and 22% had no religious
connection. The oldest shelter in our study was established in the year 1766 according to the records
available to the shelter managers, five shelters were established in the 19th century, five in the first
half of the 20th century and the rest were established in the second half of the 20th century and in the
21st century. Almost half of the shelters (48%) visited in this study were administered through
charitable societies, 33% by public trusts, 13% by private trusts and the rest (6%) by government,
municipalities or temple trusts. Philanthropy by the public, business houses, trusts and funding by
Animals 2020, 10, 211 7 of 32

the state governments were the principal sources of funding for the shelters. Only 46% of the shelters
were affiliated to the AWBI. Regular auditing of the shelter funds was done in 96% of the shelters.
Out of the 54 shelter managers interviewed in the study, 50 provided the estimated income and
expenditure of their shelters. The median annual expenditure of the shelters was 3,525,000 Indian
rupees (approximately US$ 50,000). The median annual income was 125,000 rupees (approximately
US$ 1800). The maximum annual expenditure being incurred by a shelter was 150,000,000 Indian
rupees (approximately US$ 2,000,000). In addition, five of the shelters reported no incomes and the
maximum annual income reported was 12,444,000 Indian rupees (approximately US$ 174,000).
Income was provided by sales of milk, manure, urine and hides. Milk was sold in only 37% of
the shelters, and most of the milk produced was distributed free of cost to the workers by the gaushala
managers. Dung was sold as manure in 54% of the shelters. Partial disposal of dung by shelters was
done in the form of donation of manure free of charge to the local farmers (37%), sale as manure alone
(37%) and sale as vermicompost and manure (17%). Biogas as an alternative dung-generated fuel was
produced in only 19% of the shelters. In 9% of the shelters dung was not disposed of but left lying as
a mound within the shelter premises. In the case of urine, 76% of the shelters just let it drain off
without proper sewerage facilities to treat the slurry, and 24% of the shelters collected urine to use as
a biopesticide or in traditional medicine. Hides of dead animals were sold in 11% of the shelters.
Recording of milk yield in the shelters was done only in half of the shelters. Calving and
mortality records were maintained in 63% and 81% of the shelters, respectively. Health records were
maintained in 80% of the shelters. An inventory of veterinary drugs was maintained in 76% of the
shelters. Feed records were maintained in 91% of the shelters, while 76% of the shelters maintained
records of any sales.

4.3. Cattle, Worker and Visitor Demographics

The median number of animals housed in the shelters was 232. The median number of cows,
heifers, bulls, bullocks, female and male calves were 137, 48, 12, 9, 11 and 15, respectively. The median
number of lactating cows in the shelters was 13, with a median milk yield of 12 l/d/ shelter. Nearly
all (90%) cattle were horned. In each shelter the calves were usually reared there (mean/shelter/year,
n = 64, 59% of total calves), some donated to villagers if requested (n = 31, 29%) and a small proportion
sold (n = 13, 12%), with no significant difference between males and females (Chi Square = 0.98, p =
0.61).
The median number of male workers was six and females two, with 32% of the shelters having
no female worker. The maximum number of male and female workers in a shelter was 300 and 110,
respectively. Induction training of the workers was performed in 65% of the shelters. Anecdotally,
we were told that females more often worked in those shelters that provided worker accommodation
within the shelter premises.
Regular volunteering in the shelters by the local public was reported in 30% of the shelters,
occasional volunteering in 26% of the shelters and the absence of volunteering in 44%. In order to
have an outreach to the public, 72% of the shelters organized activities such as the celebration of cow
specific holy festivals (like ‘gau ashtami’, ‘govardhan pooja’), recitation of religious scriptures by saints,
open days and community feasts, according to their financial capacities.
All shelters allowed visits for a variety of purposes: exclusively for religious reasons was
reported by 9% of the managers, 39% for seeing or feeding the cows and 52% for all the above reasons.
Most of the shelters (98%) did not allow anyone to conduct experiments on their animals. Nearly all
shelters (96%) allowed visitors to feed the cattle, and 87% of the shelters monitored it. Most of the
shelters allowed feeding of homemade food to cows by the visitors after proper monitoring of the
contents of the food. However, on special occasions, there were more visitors offering food to the
cows.

4.4. Health Management, Breeding, Housing and Disaster Management

Animals 2020, 10, 211 8 of 32

Almost all the shelters (96%) vaccinated their cattle against foot and mouth disease (FMD),
haemorrhagic septicaemia (HS) and black quarter disease (BQ) in 85% of the shelters and FMD and
HS only in 11%. There was only one shelter that vaccinated against brucellosis along with the other
diseases, and one shelter did not vaccinate their animals at all. Most of the shelters (81%) vaccinated
the cattle twice a year and 15% thrice a year. Endoparasiticidal treatment was given biannually in
35% of the shelters, three times a year in 17%, four times a year in 30%, once a year in 5% and three
shelters never gave it. Regular schedules of endo and ectoparasiticidal treatment were used by 7%
and 50% of shelters, respectively. In addition, 21% of the shelters treated four times a year, 11% twice
a year, 5% three times a year, 3% once a year and 7% of the shelters never treated with either
parasiticidal treatment.
Only 17% of the shelters employed in-house veterinarians but a further 26% had veterinarians
on call. Some 13% of the shelters had daily veterinarian visits, 13% weekly, 13% fortnightly and 5%
monthly visits. The median mortality rate of the cattle in shelters was 30 animals/year or 13.8%. Old
age was ranked as the main cause of mortality (53%), followed by animals brought in in a moribund
state (28%), disease (8.5%), chronic debility (5.5%), other causes (3%, such as fatal injuries due to fights
within herd mates, impaction of the gastrointestinal tract with plastics) and malnutrition/ fodder
shortage (2%).
Biosecurity measures in the shelters in the form of separate sheds, were followed in 57% of the
shelters during the introduction of new animals, isolation wards for separating and treating sick cows
(72%); disposal of carcasses took place by deep burial within the shelter premises in 43% of the
shelters, whereas 39% shelters allowed the municipalities to dispose of the carcasses. However, 18%
of the shelters left the carcasses in the open or just threw them in a nearby creek or ravine. Disease
outbreaks in the last five years, predominantly FMD, were reported by 43% of the shelters.
The majority of the shelters (91%) allowed the cows to reproduce; 44% of which was mating by
bulls housed with the cows and 44% was planned, with cows taken to bulls when oestrus was
observed. The purposes of breeding was usually (56%) for indigenous breed conservation, breed
improvement and increased productivity; with 44% allowing it without any purpose. Colostrum was
fed to all calves born in the shelters and 94% of the shelters fed it immediately after the birth. Calves
were kept with their mothers in most (57%) shelters. In 68% of shelters the cows were segregated into
different sheds according to their age and length of stay. Access to pastures was available only in 41%
of the shelters, whereas 81% had access to yards. Approximately the same proportion of shelters sent
their cows outdoors to the yards for less than (46%) and more than (44%) 6 h. Cows were not allowed
outdoors in 9% of the shelters, mostly due to the absence of yards and pastures. Loading and
unloading ramps for the cows were available in 57% of the shelters.
Most shelter managers (76%) expressed ignorance about any disaster management plans for
their shelters, and 74% believed that their shelter was not located in a disaster-prone area (areas prone
to flooding, avalanches, landslides, and bushfires). Animal enrichment measures were employed in
52% of the shelters but were mostly restricted to the provision of playing devotional music.

4.5. Association of Shelter Administration, Affiliation, Income and Financial Support of Government with
Various Health and Welfare Parameters
No significant association was observed between the income of the shelters with other
independent variables using a General Linear Model, though there was a trend towards shelters
affiliated to the AWBI having more income (p = 0.07). There was a significant positive association
between the mortality rates with total milk yield/day (SE of coefficient = 0.001, F = 10.37, p = 0.004)
and presence of an in-house veterinarian (SE of coefficient = 166, F = 4.86, p = 0.002). The r2 (adjusted)
for the model was 61%.
There was a significant association between the type of administration of the shelters
(government, public trust, private trust or a charitable society) and the presence of biosecurity
measures for newly admitted animals (OR = 18.94, 95% CI 2.73–131.22, p-value 0.003). Shelters run by
charitable societies were less likely (10/26) to use biosecurity measures for newly admitted animals
than the public trust run shelters (14/18). Acknowledgement by the managers of financial support of
Animals 2020, 10, 211 9 of 32

the government to the shelters was associated with frequency of vaccination (OR = 10.23, 95% CI 1.34–
78.15, p = 0.02). Those shelters that disagreed that government provided financial support were
relatively more likely to vaccinate their cattle twice a year (5/13) than those who agreed that
government provided financial support (3/21).

4.6. Attitude of Managers to Cow Welfare and Support for the Shelter
Managers’ attitudes are presented as bar charts (Figure 2), with comparison between mean
responses presented in Appendix B. Most managers agreed that welfare was important to them
(Figure 2), that they were willing to adopt measures to improve welfare, that feed was adequate and
that they had made or intended to make welfare improvements. There was less agreement that their
knowledge of animal welfare was adequate and that the local community morally supported the
shelter. There was only marginal agreement that the local community morally and financially
supported the shelter and that the government morally supported the shelter. There was no clear
agreement that government financially supported the shelter.
Animals 2020, 10, 211 10 of 32

Figure 2. Perceived beliefs and attitudes expressed by 54 gaushala managers.

4.7. Qualitative Assessment
All the gaushala managers answered the open-ended question: What do you understand by the
term ‘welfare of cows’? We developed 50 word frequencies from the responses (Table 1). Words that
were found more than eight times were as follows: care (n = 27), mother (16), goddess (16), rescued
(12), abandoned (10), feeding (9) and proper (8). The word cloud (Figure 3) emphasizes the
interrelated concepts: mother, care, goddess, abandoned and rescue.

Table 1. Word frequency count of the question ‘What do you understand by the term ‘welfare of
cows’?

Word Length Count Weighted Percentage (%) Similar Words

care 4 27 16.56 care, cared, cares
mother 6 16 9.82 mother
goddess 7 16 9.82 goddess
rescued 7 12 7.36 rescue, rescued
abandoned 9 10 6.13 abandoned, abandonment
feeding 7 9 5.52 feeding
proper 6 8 4.91 proper
duty 4 4 2.45 duty
freedom 7 4 2.45 freedom, freedoms
religious 9 4 2.45 religious
watering 8 4 2.45 watering
dumb 4 3 1.84 dumb
heritage 8 3 1.84 heritage
protected 9 3 1.84 protected, protection, protections
slaughter 9 3 1.84 slaughter
five 4 2 1.23 five
granting 8 2 1.23 granting
service 7 2 1.23 service

Figure 3. Word Cloud for the question ‘What do you understand by the term ‘welfare of cows’?

5. Discussion
Gaushala management in the contemporary context is challenging and complex due to the
regular influx of cattle of different age groups and varied health and body condition. The managers’
performance is under the constant scrutiny by the trustees/board of directors and the public, due to
the religious status of the cow in Indian society and the high expectations of the shelters to provide
good welfare to the cows sheltered in them. This study is the first to report on routine gaushala
management and husbandry practices across the North Western, Northern and Western parts of

Animals 2020, 10, 211; doi:10.3390/ani10020211 www.mdpi.com/journal/animals

Animals 2020, 10, 211 20 of 32

India, which have the highest concentration of gaushalas in the country. Overall, several positive and
negative aspects of welfare and management were identified that deserve the attention of all
stakeholders to improve these traditional institutions and increase their sustainability.

5.1. Human and Cattle Demographics

Mostly male workers worked in shelters as it is a full-time job and females were required to
manage housework. As well, managing cow shelters is clearly a male-dominated profession, to add
to the great imbalance in favour of male workers employed in the shelters. In a recent study on public
attitudes towards cow shelters, males were more likely to credit shelters as being of religious
importance [30]. Traditionally, decision making and managerial roles have been either denied or
constrained for women in the animal husbandry sector in India due to the paternalistic bias of Indian
society [32]. Gender inequalities favoring males exist in access to information, as well as ownership
of land and livestock in Indian society [33]. The women are mostly confined to household work,
including tending to livestock at home whereas the men work outside the homes to earn a stable
income.
The percentage of rural and urban backgrounds of the shelter managers was almost equal to the
rural and urban population in the current demography of India [34]. The majority of the managers
were in the age range of 46–65 years, had graduate and postgraduate qualifications and experience
of working in cattle farms, which gives confidence in their maturity, education level and experience
levels to handle the complex routine management of the gaushalas. The majority of them also
identified their role as being team leaders supervising the workers.
The static nature of our survey does not reflect what is a dynamic process, with intake of cattle
at regular intervals into the shelters all through the year, rather than tending to a fixed number of
cattle. Managers’ monthly stock records were made available in some shelters and revealed a regular
influx of cattle through the year. No discrimination was observed in rearing of male and female calves
in the shelters and more than half of them were reared in the shelters to adulthood. Both male and
female calves (almost equal numbers of each) were donated to the villagers nearby on demand. If
they were sold, it is expected that it would be for a much lower price than market value, because of
the risk of them carrying disease. Over time it is likely that male calves will be in less demand due to
the gradual mechanization of agricultural operations [1]; suggesting that more male animals will be
abandoned. Fewer bullocks are being raised by farmers, as fodder availability and cost prohibits
round their year maintenance. Renting of tractors or maintaining mechanized tillers for ploughing
the fields is likely to be more economical. These factors contribute to the low demand for male calves
to be raised as draft animals. Calves obtained free or at low cost are more likely to be abandoned,
hence it would be better to improve disease management in the gaushalas, which would then enable
the calves to be sold at market price.

5.2. Health Management

The majority of the cattle sheltered in gaushalas were likely to be immunocompromised, with
infectious disease-causing agents like Listeria sp., Streptococcus sp., Staphylococcus sp., and
Corynebacterium sp. predominating due to the unhygienic environment [35,36]. Vaccination against
FMD, Black Quarter, and haemorrhagic septicaemia was satisfactory in this study. However, 4% of
the shelters did not vaccinate their animals at all, which is a concern as many diseases, particularly
FMD, are enzootic in India, with recurrent outbreaks leading to economic and social losses [37–39].
These shelters might act as potential reservoirs of the disease threatening the local cattle population.
The government plays an active role through state animal husbandry departments, by distributing
vaccines free of cost to the gaushalas, and in many cases offering veterinarians for the vaccinations.
However, a high cost of veterinary services has been reported as one of the constraints faced by
gaushalas in a couple of Indian states [29,40].
Vaccination and testing for brucellosis were rare and this could present a public health threat to
the personnel working in the shelters and consumers, besides the sheltered cattle. There have been
Animals 2020, 10, 211 21 of 32

cases of Brucella positive cattle being culled by dairy farms and then sheltered in gaushalas [41,42].
A study has found a 15.5% prevalence of brucellosis in gaushala cattle and 4.5% in the workers
employed in the gaushalas [43]. None of the shelters were testing their cattle for tuberculosis, a
zoonotic disease with considerable public health implications. There are chances of tuberculosis
positive retired cattle being admitted to the gaushalas as tuberculosis is prevalent in both the
organized and unorganized dairy sector in India, generating cows for the shelters [44,45]. Gaushala
cows have been found to be often positive for tuberculosis, with higher prevalence rates than
organized and rural farms [46,47]. India has the world’s highest burden of human tuberculosis [48],
and the possible role of gaushalas in the zoonotic transmission of this disease is a concern. Another
disease of zoonotic importance, listeriosis, has been isolated from gaushala cattle; the disease is shed
through faeces, vaginal secretions and can survive for prolonged time in harsh conditions, leading to
increased risk of further transmission [36,49,50].
Use of both endo and ectoparasiticides was practised in most cow shelters, though the frequency
of application varied widely. The prevalence of tick infestation in gaushalas and unorganized dairy
farms has been reported as 45%, but only 4% in the organized sector. [51,52]. Besides the ticks feeding
on blood, infestation leads to anemia and loss of body condition [53], and they transmit babesiosis,
anaplasmosis and borreliosis [52,54]. Deworming in our study was more common than previously
reported in a localized study [55]. A 44% prevalence of gastrointestinal parasitism has been reported
in gaushalas in one part of the state of Gujarat [56 ], a state included in our study. Gastrointestinal
parasitism and lungworms reduce growth [57,58].
The lack of permanent veterinarians in the majority of shelters is likely to hinder management
of sick cows and routine health initiatives. There is no requirement for mandatory veterinary
attendance at gaushalas, and a shortage of field veterinarians in India [59]. However, most of the
veterinarians employed by the state animal husbandry departments provide technical assistance to
the shelters located within their jurisdiction.

5.3. Visitors to the Shelter

Most gaushalas welcomed visitors, which suggests that they have an important social and
religious function, however this will also compromise biosecurity. Moreover, many shelters reported
outbreaks of FMD in the last five years, which might be due to poor biosecurity, as the majority of
the shelters vaccinated their animals against the disease. FMD is endemic in India, spreading by direct
contact with infected animals, fomites of workers, fodder and feeding utensils [60] with vaccination
and restriction of animal movements are the core control methods [61]. Unhygienic conditions and
immunocompromised animals in shelters also contribute to a high prevalence of listeriosis [36]. These
highly infectious, communicable and zoonotic diseases and biosecurity and screening protocols are
very important to prevent shelters being reservoirs of these diseases.
Feeding of food produced in visitors’ homes to the cows in most of the shelters might lead to
gastrointestinal disturbances, e.g., ruminal acidosis or grain engorgement. There are reports of shelter
cows getting sick due to eating such food in excessive quantities or eating spoilt food [62].

5.4. Cow Mortality

Mortality rate in cows is an indicator of health and welfare. The median mortality rate of 13.8%
was higher than for dairy cows on farms in Western countries, in which it ranges between 1% and
5% [63]. There are only limited data about mortality rates of dairy cattle in India from single states,
ranging from 4–20% [64–66]. There are no other estimates of mortality rates in shelter cattle for
comparison, but it is expected that it would be higher than in dairy farms as most of the sheltered
cattle are old, debilitated and infirm. This was confirmed by the shelter managers who ranked old
age as the biggest cause of death. Studies on dairy cows have found the mortality to be double in old
cows (≥ 6.5 years) than young cows (< 6.5 years) [63,67,68].
Post-mortems of dead animals in the shelters are advisable to identify possible causes of death
but the logistics of disposal, availability of veterinarians and risk of zoonotic diseases may mitigate
Animals 2020, 10, 211 22 of 32

against them. Cows are often brought into the shelter in a moribund condition after sustaining
automobile hits, being rescued from transportation to illegal slaughter houses or enduring a life of
on the streets with a lack of adequate food and shelter. However, these were confirmed as less
important reasons than old age as causes of mortality. Fodder shortages in overpopulated shelters
may predispose cows to malnutrition, with competition for meagre fodder, such as poor quality
straw. Overstocking increases aggression between the cows especially at the feed bunk, leading to
injuries which may sometimes be fatal, as most of cows in shelters have horns [69–71]. Based on our
observations during our visits to the shelters and interactions with shelter managers, the segregation
of the animals on the basis of sex, age and body condition could improve their welfare.
Mortality also occurred following ingestion of plastic bags. Most of the cows had been rescued
from the streets, especially in urban gaushalas they are forced to scavenge on the plastic laden
garbage in bins and refuse dumps. In one study 95% of stray cattle had gastrointestinal disorders
following ingestion of plastic bags and other foreign bodies [72]. Plastic ingestion causes
gastrointestinal disorders such as ruminal impaction, indigestion and tympany [72–74] and if not
treated surgically becomes fatal. Cows with plastics lodged in their stomach are also
immunosuppressed, making them susceptible to other infections [72].

5.5. Routine Management and Waste Disposal

Most shelters were being used as rescue homes for managing the street cow overpopulation
rather than breed conservation or upgradation centers. Thus, breeding of the cows in the shelters
might not be desirable from an animal welfare point of view. Breeding of old and low body condition
cows might compromise the health of the dam and the calf due to the lack of specific individual
animal care. Moreover, further increases in animal population through such calvings could pose
additional difficulties in managing the growing number of animals being admitted to the shelters. In
the past shelters were encouraged as breed conservation centers by the government [75]. However,
indiscriminate breeding of cows, observed in half of the shelters in our study, if not checked could
severely impact the cows’ welfare due to overcrowding. Separation of calves from their mothers in
40% of the shelters is also a welfare concern. Conversely not segregating cows according to their age,
body condition and length of stay in the shelters in one third of the shelters could be a reason for
aggression between the cows, leading to injuries that are at times fatal.
The access to pastures in 41% of the shelters is encouraging for cow welfare; most of these
shelters were located in the rural areas, whereas the cows in urban shelters did not have the benefit
of pasture grazing. Pasture grazing changes the physical environment of the cows, enables them to
exercise, induces changes in diet routines and improves the health of the hooves. Pasture grazing
helps cows recover from lameness and allows a more comfortable surface to stand upon and lie down
[76]. It facilitates behaviors such as grazing, lying and resting and reduces aggression [77]. Access to
yards is also good for welfare, though it cannot replace the advantages of pasture access. The exercise,
interaction and exploration of environment that cows get through outdoor access to yards also
improves claw conformation [78]. Exercise improves bone and hock strength and prevents hock
injuries [79], through improving circulation of blood to the limbs, enabling proper nutrition and
oxygen to the horn tissues of the claws producing the horn [80]. Animal enrichment in the form of
devotional music in half of the shelters in the study might help in alleviating stress. Studies on
enrichment of environment of cows, especially auditory enrichment through classical and country
music, have demonstrated improvement in biological functioning such as health and fitness levels to
cope with stressors, reduce frustration and fulfil behavioral needs [81].
The sale, donation and vermicomposting of dung promotes organic farming, which is especially
valuable in rural areas where farmers cannot afford to buy chemical fertilizers. This disposal was
much less than the amount of dung generated but still useful because the land area is insufficient to
absorb the quantity of dung. Mounds of excreta, bedding and fodder waste generated in the shelters
are health hazards to the cows in the shelters, the workers and the public living in the vicinity.
Improper management and disposal of such wastes, especially in limited spaces of urban areas, are
public health and environmental risks [82], contributing to point and non-point sources of
Animals 2020, 10, 211 23 of 32

environmental pollution [83]. The offensive smell of the animal waste generated is due to the
decomposition of microorganisms; releasing noxious gases such as ammonia, carbon dioxide,
hydrogen sulfide, and methane that adversely impact on human health [84]. There are a number of
parasites in cattle dung which can be transmitted to other cows and to humans handling it [85,86].
Cryptosporidium and giardia are two intestinal protozoan parasites with zoonotic potential that have
been found in cattle in shelters and roaming in streets [86]. The dung breeding flies are potential
sources of transmission of diseases and parasites in humans and animals [87,88].
Urine was used in a quarter of the shelters for processing into traditional medicine or as a
biopesticide for crops. In traditional Indian medicine, cow urine is claimed to cure many chronic
human health disorders [89–93]. It has also been used as a bio-enhancer, increasing the nitrogen
content of the soil, and as a bio-pesticide through its larvicidal action on fodder crops [94,95].

5.6. Disaster, Human Resource and Financial Management

Disaster management plans should be present but were mostly not. As cattle sheltering increases
in India new shelters might be established in areas that are uninhabited by humans such as near
creeks or around forests, with their attendant flood and fire risks, in which case disaster management
plans will be critical.
The availability of workers in large cow shelters has not been an issue, but small shelters
sometimes encounter this problem [55]. Induction training of workers was reported in two-thirds of
the shelters but is an informal training; most managers believing that workers had prior experience
of working with cows when they were from rural areas. This is an area of shelter management that
requires attention as managing cows in shelters is different from dairy cows, with the former being
malnourished and often in poor condition when rescued from streets. They need additional and
humane care as they often have a fear of humans due to previous neglect and ill-treatment on the
streets. Therefore, a dedicated worker induction program is important for improving the human-
animal relationship in the shelters. It should not be just skill-based training but aim at behavior
modification of the workers. Research has shown that training of stock persons improves beliefs, and
better behavior towards animals improves their welfare [96]. Cows are venerated by the Hindu
population, hence there should be an increased emphasis on the competency levels of workers to care
for the cows in shelters. Animal enrichment measures in some shelters may have helped cows to cope
with stress [81 ] by improving biological functioning, reducing frustration, and fulfilling behavior
needs. However, enrichment efforts fail if the changes effected in the cows’ environment have little
practical significance to the animals, are not goal-oriented and are based on incorrect assumptions of
causation of problems [97 ]. Environment enrichment requires finance and time, both of which are
often deficient in the shelters.
The maintenance of records was variable; feed records were probably the only well-maintained
records in the shelters because feed consumption involved the biggest expenditure. Maintenance of
records of mortality, calving, veterinary treatment, medicines, and sales should be encouraged in all
shelters. Uniformity of recording is needed in order to collect and analyze data for performance
analysis, auditing, interventions by advisory services and for future planning. Volunteering (regular
or occasional) by the public, at least in half of the shelters, shows the connection of the people to the
shelters, either due to veneration or simply for animal welfare. The outreach activities organized in
the majority of the shelters focused on religious festivals ascribed to the ‘holy cow’, which could
promote more volunteering. Teaching the religious scriptures on the holiness of the cows in ancient
texts narrating the works of the saints might influence the spirituality of the attendees. However, a
more proactive approach to shelter management with advertisements for volunteers will further
enhance participation of the local public in shelter management.
The ancient nature and connection of most of the shelters with the three main religions in India
(Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism) proves the religion-driven concept of sheltering cows. The
reliance of shelters on private funding or charitable societies or trusts confirms the findings of Bijla
and Singh [98 ]. Almost all shelters audited their funds annually, reflecting their accountability to the
donors. This could be why less than half were affiliated with the AWBI, as they were not financially
Animals 2020, 10, 211 24 of 32

dependent on AWBI to function. However, AWBI is a statutory government body established as a

watchdog of animal welfare all over the country and has affiliated shelters. Implementation of this as
a mandatory requirement will be important to bring about uniformity in the management of cow
shelters up to modern scientific standards of animal welfare, which should be determined by welfare
auditing.
Most of the shelters reported higher expenditures than incomes but some were reluctant to share
the exact figures of the finances. Feeding incurred the highest expenditure, which corroborates the
findings on the only economic study of cow shelters, in one state of India [98]. Positive returns were
reported by these researchers as the shelters were able to meet their operating costs in their study, in
contrast to our study, though the median annual income by shelters in our study was approximately
similar to the cited study. The reason for this could be the active support of the government of that
particular state to support self-sustainability in its cow shelters, through the sale of milk and other
products. The shelters studied in this study were mostly functioning as rescue homes without any
economic returns, a function of our selection criteria. Adequate welfare levels in the shelters were
asserted by most managers, though intentions to further improve welfare and their knowledge levels
were evident. Animal welfare mostly meant care of the holy cow for them, as revealed by the
qualitative analysis of the open-ended question posed to them. Financial support from the local
community was acknowledged but financial support from the government was not, despite free
fodder, vaccination and veterinary support being provided by the government. Shelter managements
need to be made aware of the financial costs of these free services being provided by the government.

5.7. Associations between Shelter Administration, Affiliation, Income with Health and Welfare of Cows
The shelters affiliated to the AWBI revealed of trend of garnering more income. It could the
existence of a proper managemental structure in such shelters that might encourage the public to
donate money. Moreover, AWBI also provides financial and material assistance to its affiliated
shelters regularly. The positive association of mortality rate with milk yield might be due to more
attention of the shelter management to the dairy cows for milk production and sale than the non-
productive ones, leading to the neglect and deteriorated health of the latter. High mortality rate in
shelters that had in house veterinarian could be due to the high admission of cattle into such shelters.
A high intake might force the shelters to hire a permanent veterinarian to cater for the upkeep of the
health of the larger cattle numbers rescued from streets and slaughter. Similarly, shelters run by
public trusts had significantly better biosecurity measures for newly admitted cattle than those run
by charitable societies. This might be due to shelters in the public domain being more open to public
scrutiny and accountable. The shelters that did not acknowledge financial support of the government
were more likely to more frequently vaccinate their cattle than those that agreed that the government
financially supports them. This relationship could be misleading because the government invariably
provides free vaccines to all shelters in order to prevent the spread of diseases from shelter animals
to the farmer owned animals. A possible explanation could be that such shelters might be financially
sound and hence more efficient in safeguarding the health of their cattle.

5.8. Attitudes of Shelter Managers

All the shelter managers had a high opinion of the adequacy of the welfare of cows, their own
work and the human-animal relationships in their respective shelters. However, almost all of them
were open to adopt measures to improve the welfare of cows under them and believed that they had
made improvements towards cows in their shelters. Animal welfare and public livelihood are
interconnected in India [99] and the role of managers in cow shelters is one of such manifestations.
The majority of the managers were Hindus from rural backgrounds, having grown up around cows
with respect and reverence for cows in their religious beliefs. This could be the reason for many
believing themselves to be knowledgeable and taking good care of the welfare of cows in shelters.
Animals such as the cow which humans perceive as attractive are shown more empathy [100,101].
However, scientifically supported and prescribed guidelines for cow welfare might not be known to
Animals 2020, 10, 211 25 of 32

the managers. There is a willingness of stakeholders to improve animal welfare, based on science in
India [99]. Most shelter managers acknowledged the moral, and to a lesser extent financial, support
provided by the public. However, even though moral support by government was generally
acknowledged, their financial support was acknowledged by only half of the shelter managers. In
this study, government provided most of the fodder (straw) and vaccination against endemic
diseases. This might not be construed as financial support by managers but can offset a major part of
the running costs of the shelters. Similarly, volunteering by local people can offset labor costs.
The analysis of the qualitative assessment indicated that, despite earning their livelihood
through the management of the cow shelters, the managers held cows in high esteem—as a mother
goddess which must be properly cared for and should be rescued from abandonment as a part of
their religious duty. The qualitative analysis of the open-ended question defined the status of the cow
as being ‘holy’ and ‘mother goddess’ and the concern of the managers for its abandonment and its
proper care after rescue from slaughter. This result to some extent reveals the exalted status of the
cow among the Hindus in contemporary India and the understanding about its welfare.

6. Limitations of the Study

The selection of the shelters based on the suggestions from the AWBI, veterinarians from the
states covered in the study and snow-balling might generate selection bias as shelters with different
levels of welfare and size were studied.
There is a possibility that managers might have tried to report to the researcher answers that the
researcher wanted. However, the face-to-face interview technique has less chance of false reporting
than other techniques of data collection. It is also possible that 54 shelters in six states were not
representative of all the shelters in India, but logistical, time and financial constraints made us select
a statistically viable sample to report the contemporary situation of shelters in just the states which
had a tradition of sheltering, and one state, Himachal Pradesh, where there was a government
initiative to open new cow shelters.
This research is the first survey of contemporary cow shelter management through a cross-
sectional study, which has its inherent limitations and biases. More studies are required to find out
the regional differences, issues and constraints in the management of cow shelters in all states of
India. Longitudinal studies should also be undertaken to observe the effects of government
interventions on the strengthening as well as opening of shelters. Economic analysis of the sheltering
of cows also needs more in-depth and focused studies.

7. Conclusions
Managers are very important stakeholders in the welfare of cows in shelters. They are in an ideal
position due to their work profile and experience to identify the problems and constraints of the
routine management of shelters. Therefore, their engagement in all initiatives to improve welfare of
cows in shelters is vital for the perpetuation of the sustainability of these unique traditional
institutions. Sheltering of cows is a dynamic process, with abandoned and rescued cows regularly
entering the shelters. Biosecurity measures in the shelters do need enhancing, to prevent shelters
becoming reservoirs of infections, parasitism, and zoonotic diseases. Specific shelter protocols need
to be formulated at a national level and enforcement of compliance of these protocols ensured
through a central governing body. A greater involvement of qualified veterinarians would benefit
the management of animal health. There was evidence from this study of involvement of permanent
veterinarians in shelters that witnessed high mortality rates. This also suggests increasing cow
numbers in shelters in future would invariably need in house veterinarians to cater to the health
needs of the sheltered cows, but that this might not necessarily prevent an increase in mortality rate.
This study identified various welfare issues through the survey of shelter managers that can be
resolved by managemental initiative and intervention. Indiscriminate breeding, lack of access to
pasture and tethering of cows are the welfare issues that demand a comprehensive policy regulation
encompassing all shelters in the country. Proper and complete disposal of dung and urine needs
Animals 2020, 10, 211 26 of 32

attention as due to increasing cow numbers as well as shelters, this poses a public health risk. Feeding
of cows by visitors needs routine monitoring. A uniformity in the maintenance of all records in all
shelters throughout the country is important. This will help in welfare interventions, support,
auditing and feedback for all stakeholders. Mandatory affiliation of all shelters to the AWBI is
desirable, given its statutory role as an advisor and watchdog of animal welfare in the country.
Evidence of shelters affiliated to AWBI being able to generate more income in this study also justifies
the above recommendation. Affiliation to AWBI is mandatory to receive regular funding from the
AWBI and helps in convincing the donors (especially the general public) about the proper utilization
and accountability of their donations. Cow shelters can become educational centers for animal
welfare through their outreach programs. Shelters run by public trusts were more vigilant towards
biosecurity measures than those run by charitable societies. This suggests value in further
strengthening of public trusts in cow shelter management, and that ensuring better compliance to
biosecurity protocols in shelters runs by charitable societies would be a worthwhile aim. Shelter
management need to understand that vaccines entail a huge financial cost to the government, as they
are provided free of cost to the shelters along with logistic support by government veterinarians and
support staff. This, if accounted into financial terms is a strong support from government to the
shelters, which is unfortunately not recognized by many shelter managers. The issue of euthanizing
very sick cows and those suffering with contagious diseases needs careful deliberation with the
stakeholders, taking into account the strong religious reservations to it. Animal welfare scientists,
policy makers and public representatives need to deliberate on the humaneness of euthanasia in such
exceptional cases.
Welfare centric training of managers and workers should be easily implemented, as all the
managers were willing to accept suggestions to improve the welfare of cows in their respective
shelters. Training of managers and workers in modern scientific concepts of welfare-based
management of cattle will help in an excellent amalgamation of science and tradition to sustain this
institution of sheltering cows, which signifies the perpetuation of some traditional ethos of Indian
society towards cow welfare.

Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/10/2/211/s1.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.S. and C.J.C.P.; Methodology, A.S., C.J.C.P. and C.S.; software, A.S.
and C.J.C.P.; validation, A.S. and C.J.C.P.; formal analysis, A.S.; investigation, A.S.; resources, A.S. and C.J.C.P.;
data curation, A.S. and C.J.C.P.; writing—original draft preparation, A.S.; writing—review and editing, C.J.C.P.
and C.S.; visualization, A.S.; supervision, C.J.C.P. and C.S; project administration, C.J.C.P.; funding acquisition,
C.J.C.P., A.S. and C.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding: This study was a part of the PhD research project of the first author which was funded by the School
of Veterinary Science, The University of Queensland, Australia, Humane Society International (HSI) payment
no.14444 dated 21/09/2016, Australia, Universities Federation for Animal Welfare (UFAW) UFAW grant no. 13-
16/17, UK, and the Fondation Brigitte Bardot, France.

Acknowledgments: We acknowledge the financial support from the University of Queensland, Humane Society
International (HSI), Australia, Universities Federation for Animal Welfare (UFAW), UK, and the Fondation
Brigitte Bardot, France. The Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) is also gratefully acknowledged for
according permission and support for this study. The help and assistance rendered by the managers and workers
of the shelters during the field research work is also gratefully acknowledged.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the
study; in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to
publish the results.
Animals 2020, 10, 211 27 of 32

Appendix A

Survey Questionnaire of the Managers on Welfare of Cattle in Shelters (Gaushalas) in India.

Gaushala Name & Code:

Screening questions

1. Does this gaushala have a minimum of 30 animals?

a. Yes
b. No

2. Which of the following are admitted to this goshala?

a) Infertile
b) abandoned
c) infirm
d) old cows
e) Stray cows
f) All of these
g) Other

3. What religious connection does it have?

a) Jain
b) Hindu
c) Sikh
d) Other

4. When was this gaushala established? _________________________________

PART 1- Demographics

1. Please indicate your gender

a. Male……….... □
b. Female…….... □

2. In what type of area have you lived for most of your life?
a. Urban (city)…............................. □
b. Sub – Urban (Suburb)……........ □
c. Country town (Tehsil/Taluka) .... □
d. Village □

3. Please indicate your age range

a. 18–25…….......... □
b. 26–35…….......... □
c. 36–45…….......…. □
d. 46–55……......…. □
e. 56–65…….......…. □
f. Over 65……....... □
Animals 2020, 10, 211 28 of 32

4. Please indicate your education level

a. No formal education…………... □
b. Below 10th class……................... □
c. 10th class (Higher secondary)…. □
d. 10 +2 (senior secondary)….…… □
e. Diplomate
f. Graduand…….......................…. □
g. Post-graduand……...............…. □
h. Other, if any □

5. Which religion do you follow?

a. Bahai’ Faith……....... □
b. Buddhism…….......... □
c. Caodaism……........... □
d. Chinese folk religion □
e. Chondogyo………...... □
f. Christianity……....... □
g. Confuciansim……...... □
h. Hinduism……............. □
i. Islam……................... □
j. Jainism……............... □
k. Judaism…….............. □
l. Shinto……..................... □
m. Sikhism……................ □
n. Taoism……................. □
o. I don’t follow a religion□
p. Atheism □
q. Other (please specify) _______________________________________

6. To what extent do you consider yourself religious?

a. Not religious at all….... □
b. Not very religious......... □
c. Moderately religious..... □
d. Very religious……........ □

7. Please indicate which job role best describes your involvement in the gaushala
a. Work directly with the animals…………………………………………… □
b. Team Leader: Supervise people who work directly with the animals. □
c. Business owner……………………………………………………………. □
d. Business Manager………………………………………………………… □
e. Farmer……………………………………………………………………… □
f. Veterinarian who treats animals’ hands on……………………………… □
g. Veterinarian working for the Government as an advisor……………… □
h. Other, if any………………………………………………………………… □

8. Please indicate your level of understanding of gaushalas

a. Expert …………………………………………………………………… □
b. Good knowledge……………………………………………………………. □
c. Some knowledge……………………………………………………………. □
d. Little knowledge……………………………………………………………… □
e. No knowledge………………………………………………………………… □
Animals 2020, 10, 211 29 of 32

9. How did you gain your knowledge about cow welfare in goshalas?
a. Formal qualifications – relevant degree, training course……….……. □
b. Farm employment – hands on experience……………………………… □
c. Personal interest – internet, journals, newspaper articles, television
programmes……………………………………………………………….. □
d. Friends and acquaintances………………………………………………. □
e. Other ……….……………………………………………………………. … □

10. Please indicate the type of animal welfare organisation you have been involved with other
than this gaushala
a. Gaushala…………………………………………. □
b. Dairy industry ………………………………… □
c. Animal Welfare organisation………………………… □
d. Other……………………………………………………. □
e. None…………………………………………………… □

11. Please indicate the type of animal welfare activity you have been involved with in addition to
managing this gaushala
a) Activism……………………….………………… □
b) Advocacy …………………………….………. □
c) Administration …………………………………. □
d) Policy making…………………………………………. □
f. Feeding street/stray animals……………………….… □
g. Humane Education…………………………………. □
h. None…………………………………………………... □

12. Please indicate how long you have been working in the field of animal welfare
a. Less than 1 year……………………………………………………………□
b. 2 – 3 Years…………………………………………………………………. □
c. 3 – 5 Years…………………………………………………………………. □
d. 5 – 9 Years…………………………………………………………………. □
e. 10 – 15 Years……………………………………………………………… □
f. More than 15 Years………………………………………………………. □

13. Please indicate how long you have been working in this gaushala
a) Less than 1 year………………………………………………………… □
b) 2 – 3 Years…………………………………………………………………. □
c) 3 – 5 Years…………………………………………………………………. □
d) 5 – 9 Years…………………………………………………………………. □
e) 10 – 15 Years……………………………………………………………… □
f) More than 15 Years………………………………………………………. □
Animals 2020, 10, 211 22 of 32

PART 2 – Complementary Data

1. No. of cattle entering the gaushala

a) In last 3 months __________________
b) In last 6 months __________________
c) In last 1 year __________________
d) No records kept __________________

2. Total milk yield of the gaushala/ day

a) ______________ litres/day
b) No records kept

3. No. of lactating cows in the gaushala

a) ___________ cows
b) No records kept

4. Approximate proportion of horned animals

__________%

5. No. of males and female animals in the gaushala

a) Bulls
b) Cows
c) Heifers
d) Bullocks
e) Male calves (6 month or less)
f) Female calves (6 month or less)

6. If calves are born in the gaushala, what do you do with the calves?
a) Male calves
i) Sell
ii) Donate
iii) Rear
b) Female calves
i) Sell
ii) Donate
iii) Rear

7. Vaccination status of the animals

a) Vaccinated
b) Non-vaccinated
c) Some vaccinated, some not

8. If vaccinated, vaccinated against which diseases –

Animals 2020, 10, 211 23 of 32

9. If vaccinated how many times vaccination done

a) one a year
b) twice a year
c) thrice a year
d) four times a year
e) No regular schedule followed
f) Never done

10. Deworming status of the animals

a) Dewormed
b) Non-dewormed
c) Some dewormed, some not

11. If dewormed how many times deworming done

a) one a year
b) twice a year
c) thrice a year
d) four times a year
e) No regular schedule followed
f) Never done

12. If ectoparasiticidal treatment given?

a) one a year
b) twice a year
c) thrice a year
d) four times a year
e) No regular schedule followed
f) Never done

13. Veterinarian in the gaushala: In house / Visiting (If visiting how frequent)
a) Daily
b) Weekly
c) Fortnightly
d) Monthly
e) On call

14. No. of workers in the gaushala: Male _____________ Female ______________

15. Training of animal workers is done

a) Induction training done
b) Not done at all
c) Trained workers inducted
Animals 2020, 10, 211 24 of 32

16. Maintenance of records in the gaushala: List of records

i) Milk yield
ii) Calving/Reproduction
iii) Health Records
iv) Veterinary provisions/inventory
v) Mortality
vi) Feeding
vii) Sales

17. Sale of livestock products

a) Milk: Yes / No
b) Dung: Yes / No
c) Urine: Yes / No
d) Carcass: Yes/No

18. Do you have a biogas production system?

a) Yes
b) No

19. Who runs the administration of the gaushala?

______________________________

20. Rank any of the following which are funding sources, in declining order of importance
a) State Government □
b) Central Government □
c) Both the central and state government□
d) Trust □
e) Philanthropy □
f) Temple Trust □
g) Foreign Funding □
h) Others, if any □

21. Is the gaushala affiliated to AWBI?

a) Yes
b) No

22. Mortality rate in the gaushala ___________deaths/year.

23. Rank any of the following which are the causes of death?
a) Old age □
b) Debility □
c) Malnutrition □
d) Disease □
e) Brought in moribund state □
f) Others □
Animals 2020, 10, 211 25 of 32

24. What does ‘cow welfare’ mean to you?

Key words

25. Do you feed colostrum to the calves? Yes / No. If Yes, then
i) To male calves
ii) To female calves
iii) To both

26. When do you feed colostrum to the calves?

i) Immediately after birth
ii) After 6 hours of birth
iii) After 12 hours
iv) After 24 hours
v) After 48 hours

27. Do you separate the calf from the mother after birth?
i) Yes
ii) No

28. What is the feeding regime of your gaushala? (Schedule and formulation)

29. How do you manage the male calves born in the gaushala?
i) Maintain them in the gaushala for rearing as breeding bulls
ii) Sell them
iii) Donate them
iv) Castrate other than those kept for breeding

30. How much time is spent by the animals outdoors in the yard or in the grazing land in a day?
i) Not sent out at all
ii) 1-2 hours
iii) 2-4 hours
iv) 4-6 hours
v) More than 6 hours

31. Is breeding of cows done in the gaushala?

i) Yes
ii) No

32. If yes to Q.32, then what type of breeding?

i) Indiscriminate
ii) Natural breeding from a bull present in gaushala
iii) Artificial insemination

33. What is the purpose this breeding?

i) Breed improvement/improvement
ii) Improve productivity
iii) No purpose
Animals 2020, 10, 211 26 of 32

34. Are the funds received by the gaushala audited regularly?

i) Yes, always
ii) Sometimes
iii) No

35. How long the workers are working in the gaushala?

i) 6 months
ii) 1 year
iii) 2 years
iv) 3 years
v) More than 3 years
vi) Keep on leaving frequently

36. How long you are working in the gaushala (manager)?

i) Less than 1 year
ii) 1-2 years
iii) 3-5 years
iv) More than 5 years

37. Do people come for volunteering in the gaushala?

i) Yes, regularly
ii) No
iii) Occasionally

38. What type of voluntary work is done?

39. Are there any animal enrichment measures in place in the gaushala?

40. Are there any biosecurity measures in place in the gaushala?

Introduction of new animals
Disposal of carcasses
Isolation room for animals suffering from infectious diseases

41. Was there any disease outbreak in 5 years in the gaushala? If yes, what was it?

42. Is there any hierarchy of animals in the animal groups and how is it controlled?

43. Is there any public relation or outreach activity done by the gaushala involving the local
community?

44. Is the gaushala located in a drought prone or flood prone area/ disaster prone area?
i) Yes
ii) No
Animals 2020, 10, 211 27 of 32

45. Are there any disaster preparedness plans in place?

46. Are the records of visitors maintained?

47. What is the purpose of visit of the visitors?

48. Is the feeding of animals by the visitors monitored by the management?

49. How is the Disposal of dung carried out?

50. How is the Handling/disposal of urine done?

51. Are dung/urine utilized as value-added resources?

52. Are there loading and unloading ramps for cows in the gaushala?

53. Is animal experimentation allowed in the gaushala?

Part -3 Attitudes
Strongly Disagree Neither Agree Strongly
Disagree Disagree Agree
or Agree
1. The welfare of the cattle in this gaushala is
satisfactory.
2. The welfare of the cattle in the gaushala is
important to me.
3. I feel that my knowledge of animal welfare is
adequate.
4. The feed the cattle receive at this gaushala is
adequate.
5. I am willing to adopt measures that will improve
the welfare of the cattle, if it was provided to me.
6. The local community financially supports this
gaushala.
7. The local community morally supports this
gaushala.
8. The government financially supports this
gaushala.
9. The government morally supports this gaushala.
10. I intend to make improvements to the welfare
of the cattle in my care.
11. In the past I have tried to make improvements
to the welfare of the animals in my care.
12. The staff at this gaushala have a close
relationship with the cattle.

Appendix B

Table 1. Mean responses to various attitudes questions posed to cow shelter managers on a scale of 1
strongly disagree to 5 strongly agree (r 2 = 31.4%).

Factor Mean SEM 95% CI

The welfare of the cattle in the gaushala is important to me. 4.92 a 0.035 4.70–5.14
I am willing to adopt measures that will improve the welfare of the cattle if it is
4.83 ab 0.063 4.61–5.05
provided to me.
The feed the cattle receive at this gaushala is adequate. 4.81 ab 0.075 4.59–5.03
In the past, I have tried to make improvements to the welfare of the animals in my care. 4.79 ab 0.055 4.57–5.01
Animals 2020, 10, 211 28 of 32

The staff at this gaushala have a close relationship with the cattle. 4.79 ab 0.071 4.57–5.01
I intend to make improvements to the welfare of the cattle under my care 4.75 ab 0.074 4.53–4.97
4.57
The welfare of the cattle in this gaushala is satisfactory. abc
0.117 4.35–4.79

I feel that my knowledge of animal welfare is adequate. 4.35 bc 0.109 4.13–4.57

The local community morally supports the gaushala. 4.18 cd 0.152 3.96–4.40
The government morally supports the gaushala. 3.72 d 0.133 3.50–3.94
The local community financially supports the gaushala. 3.70 d 0.184 3.48–3.92
The government financially supports the gaushala. 3.07 e 0.158 2.85–3.29
Means with different superscript differ significantly (p < 0.05) by Tukey’s test.

References
1. Fox, M.W. India’s Sacred Cow: Her Plight and Future. Anim. Issues 1999, 3, 1–35. Available online:
https://ro.uow.edu.au/ai/vol3/iss2/1 (accessed on 20 October 2019).
2. Ghatak, S.; Singh, B. Veterinary public health in India: current status and future needs. Rev. Sci. Tech. Off.
Int. Epiz 2015, 34, 2, doi:10.20506/rst.34.3.2391.
3. Singh, B.; Ghatak, S.; Banga, H.; Gill, J.; Singh, B. Veterinary urban hygiene: a challenge for India. Rev. Sci.
Tech. Off. Int. Epiz 2013, 32, 645–656.
4. Government of India (GOI). Road Accidents in India—2016; Ministry of Road Transport and Highways,
Transport Research Wing; Government of India: New Delhi, India, 2017; p 50.
5. Arya, S.; Swain, R.K.; Nayak, H.K.; Pati, A.K. Circadian variations in foraging and resting/standing activity
patterns of stray street cattle of urban Sambalpur, Odisha, India. Biol. Rhythm Res. 2019, 50, 1–13,
doi:10.1080/09291016.2019.1573461.
6. Lodrick, D.O. Sacred Cows, Sacred Places: Origins And Survivals Of Animal Homes in India; University of
California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1981; ISBN 13: 9780520041097.
7. Evans, B. Ideologies of the Shri Meenakshi Goushala: Hindu and Jain Motivations for a Madurai Cow
Home. ASIANetwork Exch. 2013, 20, 1–10.
8. Sarkar, R.; Sarkar, A. Sacred Slaughter: An Analysis of Historical, Communal, and Constitutional Aspects
of Beef Bans in India. Polit. Relig. Ideol. 2016, 17, 329–351, doi:10.1080/21567689.2016.1259108.
9. Narayanan, Y. Jugaad and informality as drivers of India’s cow slaughter economy. Environ. Plann. A 2019,
51, 1516–1535, doi:10.1177/0308518X19852640.
10. Lodrick, D.O. Symbol and Sustenance: Cattle in South Asian Culture. Dialect. Anthropol. 2005, 29, 61–84,
doi:10.1007/s10624-005-5809-8.
11. Gupta, C. The Icon of Mother in Late Colonial North India: ‘Bharat Mata’, ‘Matri Bhasha’ and ‘Gau Mata’.
Econ. Polit. Wkly. 2001, 36, 4291–4299. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4411354 (accessed on
18 October 2019).
12. Narayanan, Y. Cow Protection as ‘Casteised Speciesism’: Sacralisation, Commercialisation and
Politicisation. J. South Asian Stud. 2018, 41, 331–351, doi:10.1080/00856401.2018.1419794.
13. Burgat, F. Non-violence towards animals in the thinking of Gandhi: The problem of animal husbandry. J.
Agr. Environ. Ethic. 2004, 17, 223–248. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10822/995744 (accessed on 10
October 2019).
14. Valpey, K.R. Surveying the Cow care Field. In Cow Care in Hindu Animal Ethics; Valpey, K.R., Ed.; Palgrave
Macmillan: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 109–165, ISBN 978-3-030-28408-4, doi:10.1007/978-3-030-28408-
4_4.
15. Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries. 19th Livestock Census -2012 All India Report;
Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India: New Delhi, India, 2014; pp. 1–121.
16. Chakravarti, A.K. Cattle development problems and programs in India: A regional analysis. GeoJournal
1985, 10, 21–45, doi:10.1007/bf00174664.
17. Federation of Indian Animal Protection Organisations (FIAPO). Gaushalas are Torture Houses; Federation of
Indian Animal Protection Organisations: New Delhi, India, 2018.
18. Mandi, K.; Subash, S.; Singh, N.P.; Koloi, S. An analysis of constraints faced by the Gaushalas in Karnataka
state. J.Entomol. Zoo. Stud. 2018, 6, 787–791.
19. Vanhonacker, F.; Verbeke, W.; Van Poucke, E.; Tuyttens, F.A.M. Do citizens and farmers interpret the
concept of farm animal welfare differently? Livest. Sci. 2008, 116, 126–136, doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2007.09.017.
Animals 2020, 10, 211 29 of 32

20. Verbeke, W. Stakeholder, citizen and consumer interests in farm animal welfare. Anim. Welf. 2009, 18, 325–
333. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-803075 (accessed on 15 October 2019).
21. Kauppinen, T.; Vainio, A.; Valros, A.; Rita, H.; Vesala, K.M. Improving animal welfare: qualitative and
quantitative methodology in the study of farmers' attitudes. Anim. Welf. 2010, 19, 523–536, doi: 20103367689.
22. Mishra, A.K. Factors affecting returns to labor and management on U.S. dairy farms. Agr. Finance Rev. 2001,
61, 123–140, doi:10.1108/00214790180001120.
23. Caraviello, D.Z.; Weigel, K.A.; Fricke, P.M.; Wiltbank, M.C.; Florent, M.J.; Cook, N.B.; Nordlund, K.V.;
Zwald, N.R.; Rawson, C.L. Survey of Management Practices on Reproductive Performance of Dairy Cattle
on Large US Commercial Farms. J. Dairy Sci. 2006, 89, 4723–4735, doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72522-X.
24. Gourley, C.J.P.; Powell, J.M.; Dougherty, W.J.; Weaver, D.M. Nutrient budgeting as an approach to
improving nutrient management on Australian dairy farms. Aus. J. Exp. Agr. 2007, 47, 1064–1074,
doi:10.1071/EA07017.
25. Tiwari, R.; Sharma, M.C.; Singh, B.P. Animal feeding and management strategies in the commercial dairy
farms. Indian J. Anim. Sci. 2009, 79, 1183–1184.
26. Saha, A.; Jain, D. Technical efficiency of dairy farms in developing countries: A case study of Haryana state,
India. Indian J. Agric. Econ. 2004, 59, 588.
27. Sreedhar, S.; Sreenivas, D. A study on calf mortality and managemental practices in commercial dairy
farms. Livest. Res. Intern. 2015, 3, 94–98.
28. Federation of Indian Animal Protection Organisations (FIAPO). Gau Gaatha—Tale of the Cow; Federation of
Indian Animal Protection Organisations: New Delhi, India, 2018; p. 67. Available online:
http://www.fiapo.org/fiaporg/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/GAU-GAATHA-Report.pdf (accessed on 4
October 2019).
29. Bijla, S.; Khalandar, S.; Sharma, P.; Singh, A. An Analysis of Constraints Faced by Gaushalas in Haryana.
Econ. Aff. 2019, 64, 191–195.
30. Sharma, A.; Schuetze, C.; Phillips, C.J.C. Public attitudes towards cow welfare and cow shelters (gaushalas)
in India. Animals 2019, 9, 972, doi:10.3390/ani9110972 .
31. Creative Research Systems. Available online: www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm (accessed on 28
September 2019)
32. Patel, S.J.; Patel, M.D.; Patel, J.H.; Patel, A.S.; Gelani, R.N. Role of women gender in livestock sector: a
review. J. Livest. Sci. 2016, 7, 92–96. Available online: http://livestockscience.in/wp-content (accessed on 4
October 2019).
33. Thakur, S.; Varma, S.K.; Goldey, P.A. Perceptions of drudgery in agricultural and animal husbandry
operations: a gender analysis from Haryana State, India. J. Int. Dev. 2001, 13, 1165–1178, doi:10.1002/jid.814.
34. Bhagat, R.B. Emerging Pattern of Urbanisation in India. Econ. Polit. Wkly. 2011, 46, 10–12. Available online:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23017782 (accessed on 15 October 2019).
35. Kumar, M. Therapeutic Studies on Ceftiofur Sodium and Antioxidants in Subclinical Mastitis in Cows.
MVSc Thesis, Lala Lajpat Rai University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Hisar, India, 2008.
36. Ramanjeneya, S.; Sahoo, S.C.; Pathak, R.; Kumar, M.; Vergis, J.; Malik, S.V.S.; Barbuddhe, S.B.; Rawool, D.B.
Virulence Potential, Biofilm Formation, and Antibiotic Susceptibility of Listeria monocytogenes Isolated
from Cattle Housed in a Particular Gaushala (Cattle Shelter) and Organized Farm. Foodborne Pathog. Dis.
2019, 16, 214–220, doi:10.1089/fpd.2018.2494.
37. Subramaniam, S.; Pattnaik, B.; Sanyal, A.; Mohapatra, J.K.; Pawar, S.S.; Sharma, G.K.; Das, B.; Dash, B.B.
Status of Foot-and-mouth Disease in India. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 2013, 60, 197–203, doi:10.1111/j.1865-
1682.2012.01332.x.
38. Diaz-San Segundo, F.; Medina, G.N.; Stenfeldt, C.; Arzt, J.; de los Santos, T. Foot-and-mouth disease
vaccines. Vet. Microbiol. 2017, 206, 102–112, doi:10.1016/j.vetmic.2016.12.018.
39. Sreenivasa, B.P.; Mohapatra, J.K.; Pauszek, S.J.; Koster, M.; Dhanya, V.C.; Tamil Selvan, R.P.; Hosamani,
M.; Saravanan, P.; Basagoudanavar, S.H.; de los Santos, T.; et al. Recombinant human adenovirus-5
expressing capsid proteins of Indian vaccine strains of foot-and-mouth disease virus elicits effective
antibody response in cattle. Vet. Microbiol. 2017, 203, 196–201, doi:10.1016/j.vetmic.2017.03.019.
40. Patel, N.B.; Saiyed, L.H.; Rao, T.K.S.; Ranjeetsingh, R.; Modi, R.J.; Sabapara, G.P. Status and constraints of
dairying in the tribal households of Narmada valley of Gujarat-India. Anim. Sci. Rep. 2013, 7, 83–89.
41. Singh, S.K.; Bist, B. Isolation and Identification of Brucella Abortus From Cattle of Gaushala and Its
Antibiotics Sensitivity. Indian Cow Sci. Econom. J. 2009, 6, 9–11.
Animals 2020, 10, 211 30 of 32

42. Sharma, K.K.; Kalyani, I.H.; Kshirsagar, D.P.; Patel, D.R. Determination of Herd Prevalence of Brucellosis
using Rose Bengal Plate Test and Indirect ELISA. J. Anim. Res. 2015, 5, 105–108.
43. Singh, S.; Bist, B.; Chauhan, R. Seroprevalence of brucellosis in a gaushala of Mathura district and its public
health significance. J. Immunol. Immunopathol. 2004, 6, 131–132.
44. Singh, B.; Gumber, S.; Randhawa, S.; Dhand, N. Prevalence of bovine tuberculosis and paratuberculosis in
Punjab. Indian Vet. J. 2004, 81, 1195–1196.
45. Filia, G.; Leishangthem, G.D.; Mahajan, V.; Singh, A. Detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis and
Mycobacterium bovis in Sahiwal cattle from an organized farm using ante-mortem techniques. Vet. World
2016, 9, 383–387, doi:10.14202/vetworld.2016.383-387.
46. Taggar, R.K.; Bhadwal, M.S. Incidence of tuberculosis in a heterogenous cattle herd. N-E. Vet. 2008, 8, 14–
15.
47. Srinivasan, S.; Easterling, L.; Rimal, B.; Niu, X.M.; Conlan, A.J.K.; Dudas, P.; Kapur, V. Prevalence of Bovine
Tuberculosis in India: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 2018, 65, 1627–1640,
doi:10.1111/tbed.12915.
48. Thoen, C.; LoBue, P.; de Kantor, I. The importance of Mycobacterium bovis as a zoonosis. Vet. Microbiol.
2006, 112, 339–345, doi:10.1016/j.vetmic.2005.11.047.
49. Linke, K.; Rückerl, I.; Brugger, K.; Karpiskova, R.; Walland, J.; Muri-Klinger, S.; Tichy, A.; Wagner, M.;
Stessl, B. Reservoirs of Listeria Species in Three Environmental Ecosystems. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2014,
80, 5583–5592, doi:10.1128/aem.01018-14.
50. Hurtado, A.; Ocejo, M.; Oporto, B. Salmonella spp. and Listeria monocytogenes shedding in domestic
ruminants and characterization of potentially pathogenic strains. Vet. Microbiol. 2017, 210, 71–76,
doi:10.1016/j.vetmic.2017.09.003.
51. Singh, K.V.; Singh, M.; Kumar, A.; Mukesh, M. Epidemiology and seasonal variation of Ixodid ticks in dairy
cattle of Gangetic plains of Uttar Pradesh, India. Q. Res. J.Plant Anim. Sci. 2018, 33, doi:10.18805/BKAP126.
52. Surbhi, S.G.; Sangwan, A.K.; Sangwan, N. Determination of efficacy of commercial acaricides against
Ornithodoros savignyi ticks collected from Haryana. J. Entomol. Zoo. Stud. 2018, 6, 237–239.
53. Jonsson, N.N. The productivity effects of cattle tick (Boophilus microplus) infestation on cattle, with
particular reference to Bos indicus cattle and their crosses. Vet. Parasitol. 2006, 137, 1–10,
doi:10.1016/j.vetpar.2006.01.010.
54. Ghosh, S.; Bansal, G.C.; Gupta, S.C.; Ray, D.; Khan, M.Q.; Irshad, H.; Shahiduzzaman, M.; Seitzer, U.;
Ahmed, J.S. Status of tick distribution in Bangladesh, India and Pakistan. Parasitol. Res. 2007, 101, 207–216,
doi:10.1007/s00436-007-0684-7.
55. Chandra, S.; Kamboj, M. Herd health management practices of indigenous cattle in Gaushalas. J Pharmacog.
Phytochem. 2019, 8, 3576–3578.
56. Hirani, N.; Solanki, J.; Patel, A.; Hasanani, J.; Joshi, R.; Savaliya, F. Prevalence of gastro-intestinal parasites
in cows of Panjarapols in middle Gujarat. Indian J. Field Vet. 2006, 1, 15–18.
57. Charlier, J.; Höglund, J.; von Samson-Himmelstjerna, G.; Dorny, P.; Vercruysse, J. Gastrointestinal
nematode infections in adult dairy cattle: Impact on production, diagnosis and control. Vet. Parasitol. 2009,
164, 70–79, doi:10.1016/j.vetpar.2009.04.012.
58. Choubisa, S.L.; Jaroli, V.J. Gastrointestinal parasitic infection in diverse species of domestic ruminants
inhabiting tribal rural areas of southern Rajasthan, India. J Parasit. Dis. 2013, 37, 271–275,
doi:10.1007/s12639-012-0178-0.
59. Weaver, J.; Batho, H.; Münstermann, S.; Woodford, J. OIE PVS Evaluation Mission Report—India; World
Organisation for Animal Health OIE: Paris, France, 2019; p. 215.
60. Kandel, M.; Regmi, S.; Thakur, B.; Acharya, R.; Kaphle, K. Foot-and-Mouth Disease Outbreak at
Bageshwori Gaushala, Chitwan, Nepal. J.Agric. Sci. Technol. A 2018, 8, 406–411.
61. Pattnaik, B.; Subramaniam, S.; Sanyal, A.; Mohapatra, J.K.; Dash, B.B.; Ranjan, R.; Rout, M. Foot-and-mouth
Disease: Global Status and Future Road Map for Control and Prevention in India. Agr. Res. 2012, 1, 132–
147, doi:10.1007/s40003-012-0012-z.
62. Kataria, A.; Kataria, N. Diagnosis and Control of Outbreaks of Acidosis in Cattle. Indian Cow Scient. Econom.
J. 2009, 6, 60–63.
63. Thomsen, P.T.; Houe, H. Dairy cow mortality. A review. Vet. Q. 2006, 28, 122–129,
doi:10.1080/01652176.2006.9695218.
Animals 2020, 10, 211 31 of 32

64. Prasad, S.; Ramachandran, N.; Raju, S. Mortality Patterns in Dairy Animals under Organized Herd
Management Conditions at Karnal India. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2004, 36, 645–654,
doi:10.1023/B:TROP.0000042855.58026.bd.
65. Yogesh, B.; Khan, T.A.; Dohare, A.K.; Kolekar, D.V.; Nitin, W.; Singh, B. Analysis of morbidity and
mortality rate in cattle in village areas of Pune division in the Maharashtra state. Vet. World 2013, 6, 512–
515, doi:10.5455/vetworld.2013.512-515.
66. Uttam, S.; Singh, B.; Chaudhary, J.K.; Bassan, S.; Kumar, S.; Gupta, N. Analysis of morbidity and mortality
rate in bovine under village conditions of Uttar Pradesh. The Bioscan 2015, 10, 585–591.
67. Faye, B.; Perochon, L. La mortalité des vaches laitières dans l'enquête écopathologique Bretagne (France).
Vet. Res. 1995, 26, 124–131.
68. Stevenson, M.A.; Lean, I.J. Descriptive epidemiological study on culling and deaths in eight dairy herds.
Aust. Vet.J. 1998, 76, 482–488, doi:10.1111/j.1751-0813.1998.tb10188.x.
69. Huzzey, J.M.; DeVries, T.J.; Valois, P.; von Keyserlingk, M.A.G. Stocking Density and Feed Barrier Design
Affect the Feeding and Social Behavior of Dairy Cattle. J. Dairy Sci. 2006, 89, 126–133, doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-
0302(06)72075-6.
70. Fregonesi, J.A.; Tucker, C.B.; Weary, D.M. Overstocking Reduces Lying Time in Dairy Cows. J. Dairy Sci.
2007, 90, 3349–3354, doi:10.3168/jds.2006-794.
71. Knierim, U.; Irrgang, N.; Roth, B.A. To be or not to be horned—Consequences in cattle. Livest. Sci. 2015,
179, 29–37, doi:10.1016/j.livsci.2015.05.014.
72. Singh, B. Harmful effect of plastic in animals. Indian Cow Scient. Econom. J. 2005, 2, 10–18.
73. Ramaswamy, V.; Sharma, H.R. Plastic bags–Threat to environment and cattle health: A retrospective study
from Gondar City of Ethiopia. IIOAB-India J. 2011, 2, 7–11.
74. Tyagi, R.P.S.; Singh, J. Ruminant Surgery: A Textbook of the Surgical Diseases of Cattle, Buffaloes, Camels, Sheep
and Goat; CBS Publishers and Distributors: Delhi, India, 2012; Volume 20, p. 484.
75. Kachhawaha, S.; Singh, D.; Mathur, B.K.; Patil, N.V. In Gaushalas of Rajasthan State. Ind. Farm. 2015, 656,
45–47.
76. Hernandez-Mendo, O.; von Keyserlingk, M.A.G.; Veira, D.M.; Weary, D.M. Effects of Pasture on Lameness
in Dairy Cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2007, 90, 1209–1214, doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(07)71608-9.
77. Arnott, G.; Ferris, C.P.; O’Connell, N.E. Welfare of dairy cows in continuously housed and pasture-based
production systems. Animal 2017, 11, 261–273, doi:10.1017/S1751731116001336.
78. Loberg, J.; Telezhenko, E.; Bergsten, C.; Lidfors, L. Behaviour and claw health in tied dairy cows with
varying access to exercise in an outdoor paddock. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2004, 89, 1–16,
doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2004.04.009.
79. Gustafson, G.M. Effects of daily exercise on the health of tied dairy cows. Prev. Vet. Med. 1993, 17, 209–223,
doi:10.1016/0167-5877(93)90030-W.
80. Christmann, U.; Belknap, E.; Lin, H.; Belknap, J. Evaluation of hemodynamics in the normal and laminitic
bovine digit. In Proceedings of the International Symposium on Lameness in Ruminants, Orlando, FL,
USA, 9–13 January 2002.
81. Mandel, R.; Whay, H.R.; Klement, E.; Nicol, C.J. Environmental enrichment of dairy cows and calves in
indoor housing. J. Dairy Sci. 2016, 99, 1695–1715, doi:10.3168/jds.2015-9875.
82. Morse, D. Environmental considerations of livestock producers. J. Anim. Sci. 1995, 73, 2733–2740,
doi:10.2527/1995.7392733x.
83. Ongley, E.D.; Xiaolan, Z.; Tao, Y. Current status of agricultural and rural non-point source Pollution
assessment in China. Environ. Pollut. 2010, 158, 1159–1168, doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2009.10.047.
84. Copeland, C. Animal waste and hazardous substances: current laws and legislative issues. Anim. Agr. Res.
Prog. 2010, 15, 75–78.
85. Strauch, D.; Ballarini, G. Hygienic Aspects of the Production and Agricultural Use of Animal Wastes1. J.
Vet. Med. Ser. B 1994, 41, 176–228, doi:10.1111/j.1439-0450.1994.tb00222.x.
86. Utaaker, K.S.; Chaudhary, S.; Bajwa, R.S.; Robertson, L.J. Prevalence and zoonotic potential of intestinal
protozoans in bovines in Northern India. Vet. Parasitol. Reg. Stud. Rep. 2018, 13, 92–97,
doi:10.1016/j.vprsr.2018.03.008.
87. Peter, R.J.; Van den Bossche, P.; Penzhorn, B.L.; Sharp, B. Tick, fly, and mosquito control—Lessons from
the past, solutions for the future. Vet. Parasitol. 2005, 132, 205–215, doi:10.1016/j.vetpar.2005.07.004.
 Animals 2020, 10, 211 32 of 32

88. Baldacchino, F.; Muenworn, V.; Desquesnes, M.; Desoli, F.; Charoenviriyaphap, T.; Duvallet, G.
Transmission of pathogens by Stomoxys flies (Diptera, Muscidae): A review. Parasite 2013, 20, 26,
doi:10.1051/parasite/2013026.
89. Saunders, W.H.M. Effects of cow urine and its major constituents on pasture properties. N. Z. J. Agric. Res.
1982, 25, 61–68, doi:10.1080/00288233.1982.10423373.
90. Jarald, E.; Edwin, S.; Tiwari, V.; Garg, R.; Toppo, E. Antioxidant and antimicrobial activities of cow urine.
Glob. J. Pharmacol. 2008, 2, 20–22.
91. Kekuda, T.R.P.; Nishanth, B.C.; Kumar, S.V.P.; Kamal, D.; Sandeep, M.; Megharaj, H.K. Cow urine
concentrate: a potent agent with antimicrobial and anthelmintic activity. J. Pharm. Res. 2010, 3, 1025–1027.
92. Gururaja, M.; Joshi, A.; Joshi, H.; Sathyanarayana, D.; Subrahmanyam, E.; Chandrashekhar, K. Antidiabetic
potential of cow urine in streptozotocin-induced diabetic rats. Asian J. Tradit. Med. 2011, 6, 8–11.
93. Mohanty, I.; Senapati, M.R.; Jena, D.; Palai, S. Diversified uses of cow urine. Int. J. Pharm. Pharm. Sci. 2014,
6, 20–22.
94. Bharath, A.; Vinod Kumar, H.; Shailendra Kumar, M.; Rakesh Kumar, M.; Prashith Kekuda, T. Insecticidal
efficacy of Cow urine distillate (Go-mutra ark). Res. Rev. Biomed. Biotech. 2010, 1, 68–70.
95. Randhawa, G. Cow urine distillate as bioenhancer. J. Ayurveda Integr. Med. 2010, 1, 240.
96. Coleman, G.J.; Hemsworth, P.H. Training to improve stockperson beliefs and behaviour towards livestock
enhances welfare and productivity. Rev. Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz. 2014, 33, 131–137, doi:10.20506/rst.33.1.2257.
97. Newberry, R.C. Environmental enrichment: Increasing the biological relevance of captive environments.
Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 1995, 44, 229–243, doi:10.1016/0168-1591(95)00616-Z.
98. Bijla, S.; Singh, A. Economic study of Gaushalas in Haryana: functioning and profitability. Indian J. Dairy
Sci. 2019, 72, 97–107.
99. Sinclair, M.; Phillips, C.J.C. Asian Livestock Industry Leaders’ Perceptions of the Importance of, and
Solutions for, Animal Welfare Issues. Animals 2019, 9, 319, doi:10.3390/ani9060319.
100. Gunnthorsdottir, A. Physical attractiveness of an animal species as a decision factor for its preservation.
Anthrozoos. 2001, 14, 204–215, doi:10.2752/089279301786999355.
101. Serpell, J.A. Factors influencing veterinary students career choices and attitudes to animals. J. Vet.
Med.Educ. 2005, 32, 491–496, doi:10.3138/jvme.32.4.491.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

View publication stats